Greg Sankey Suing LSU | Gayle Benson Calls Out Saints | What if Wednesday | Hour 1

I know, I know, I know, I know that you're not riveted by courtroom conversations.

I know.

However, when the league issues a statement, brings forth a filing against LSU, and the term expulsion from the league is mentioned, I feel the need to mention it.

And when I read the filing yesterday into this morning, I realized that this is not about R.J. Lewis at its core.

This is not about Xavien Harris.

This is not about Daquan Wright.

They're involved, but it's deeper and, in my opinion, even more misguided and ridiculous than I initially thought.

Let me explain.

And I'm just gonna read the quotes.

I will certainly add color to them, but the quotes speak for themselves.

The conference's position is not that LSU has broken rules.

That's not their position.

It's that LSU might, not has, but they might fight a potential expulsion.

That's what this is about, protecting their First Amendment rights to enforce that they can kick LSU out of the league.

That has nothing to do with R.J. Lewis, with Daquan Wright, with Xavien Harris.

This is about, "Hey, LSU is not going to let us kick them out of the league.

You have to let us do that.

You have to let us enforce our rules." That is what the Southeastern Conference is presenting here.

Listen, and defendants in this case is LSU.

"What defendants do not say in their brief, much less through any sworn affidavit or declaration, is that they will refrain from interfering with the SEC's exercise of its undisputed right to terminate LSU's membership from the conference.

Indeed, they suggest the opposite, insisting that termination is not and was never warranted." That is legalese.

That is a lot of word salad.

Ultimately, it says, "What LSU did not say is that they're gonna let us kick them out.

In fact, they said that they shouldn't be kicked out." Well, no joke.

Like, obviously anyone would fight being kicked out of a league when they have not broken a rule.

I know, I know, I know, I know that you're not riveted by courtroom conversations.

I know.

However, when the league issues a statement, brings forth a filing against LSU, and the term expulsion from the league is mentioned, I feel the need to mention it.

And when I read the filing yesterday into this morning, I realized that this is not about R.J. Lewis at its core.

This is not about Xavien Harris.

This is not about Daquan Wright.

They're involved, but it's deeper and, in my opinion, even more misguided and ridiculous than I initially thought.

Let me explain.

And I'm just gonna read the quotes.

I will certainly add color to them, but the quotes speak for themselves.

The conference's position is not that LSU has broken rules.

That's not their position.

It's that LSU might, not has, but they might fight a potential expulsion.

That's what this is about, protecting their First Amendment rights to enforce that they can kick LSU out of the league.

That has nothing to do with R.J. Lewis, with Daquan Wright, with Xavien Harris.

This is about, "Hey, LSU is not going to let us kick them out of the league.

You have to let us do that.

You have to let us enforce our rules." That is what the Southeastern Conference is presenting here.

Listen, and defendants in this case is LSU.

"What defendants do not say in their brief, much less through any sworn affidavit or declaration, is that they will refrain from interfering with the SEC's exercise of its undisputed right to terminate LSU's membership from the conference.

Indeed, they suggest the opposite, insisting that termination is not and was never warranted." That is legalese.

That is a lot of word salad.

Ultimately, it says, "What LSU did not say is that they're gonna let us kick them out.

In fact, they said that they shouldn't be kicked out." Well, no joke.

Like, obviously anyone would fight being kicked out of a league when they have not broken a rule.